Publications
Civic Journalism: Six Case Studies
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
“Voice of the Voter”
Other Elements
KRON also produced weekly features focusing on a single issue such as crime or education; Owen listened carefully to KRON’s voice mail for not-so-obvious issues such as Indian gaming, helmet laws, and rail transit. The reports aired during the 6 p.m. news.
In addition to the issue stories and Q-and-A’s, the Chronicle ran follow-up stories based on reader responses. That had a dual effect of signaling that the partners were serious about giving voters a voice and encouraging more readers to respond. None of the stories carried a byline.
The Chronicle added a twist by tacking a few questions and answers to the bottom of the first response stories. For instance, one caller asked the candidates to address legalizing drugs. The response: None of the candidates supported the idea.
Rather than rely on readers to volunteer comments on certain issues, the Chronicle actively solicited comments using a text box that ran with “Voice of the Voter” articles. The feature evolved from a small box asking readers to “Let Us Hear Your Voice” to a more prominent box led by a large, bold-faced headline asking a specific question such as “Are the Candidates Addressing Your Concerns About the Economy?” along with instructions on how to reach the media partners. Every time a box appeared, calls and letters jumped from 25 to 30 a day to 100 or more.
KQED-FM Package
KQED offered a varied “Voice of the Voter” package in the months leading to the primary:
- Issues pieces and the “The Candidates’ Column” were aired during Morning Edition.
- Twelve editions of Forum, the station’s 9-11 a.m. weekday call-in show, were used for a roundtable format that mixed callers, two or three citizens picked from the original poll, and reporters discussing a specific issue such as the economy.
- Five half-hour single-topic specials on education, crime, the economy, the environment, and voter participation were broadcast Friday evenings.
- A two-hour April 19 forum on “Three Strikes You’re Out,” the Proposition 184 law-and-order ballot initiative, was taped by KQED and broadcast two days later.
At KQED the project reached throughout the newsroom. “In our case I think we had no choice,” said Ramirez, but he and Eisele were determined from the start to involve everyone. “A project like this doesn’t play only as political reporting.”
The mix of specials, call-ins, and issues analysis helped. “It seemed to naturally fit into what we were doing in the newsroom [which was already] divided into beats,” explained Eisele. “This had the effect of getting reporters involved who normally wouldn’t cover politics.”
The Debate
With “Voice of the Voter” coverage well under way, the partners turned their attention to the next goal: a televised statewide debate featuring the three leading Democrats for governor.
The key move was recruiting as co-sponsor the Commonwealth Club of California, a San Francisco civic organization experienced at producing high-profile political events. The club handled the logistics, freeing the partners to focus on the candidates, the format, and the coverage.
Janette Gitler, KRON’s director of programming, negotiated with the candidates. Candidate Kathleen Brown was the most difficult during negotiations. (She would later accuse Pete Wilson of refusing to debate.) She eventually agreed to the debate, but resisted efforts to televise it.
KRON produced the event for live television at a cost of about $10,000 and offered it free to stations outside the Bay Area. It was picked up by enough outlets to guarantee a statewide audience. KQED aired it live.
Instead of using citizen panelists, the partners mixed a traditional debate panel with civic journalism by having reporter-panelists Sally Eisele, Susan Yoachum and Belva Davis include questions from readers and viewers.
Nearly a thousand people packed the Grand Ballroom of the San Francisco Hilton the evening of May 24. Eleven of them were there to participate in a “Voice of the Voter” exercise. Their mission was to watch the debate, then meet with Chronicle reporters as a focus group to evaluate the candidates’ performances for the next day’s paper.
Prior to the event, most were undecided or favored Brown; they came away nearly unanimous in their choice of Tom Hayden as the clear winner. The Chronicle used their comments as stand-alone text blocks, instead of weaving them into a narrative. The paper also produced a box in which the panelists graded (A+ to F-) each candidate.
A few days later, the Chronicle again turned to a panel to evaluate campaign ads; members of both panels were selected from readers who responded to “Voice of the Voter” by phone, modem, or mail.